Gun Laws

Birdofthad wrote:

crazy people dont need guns its as simple as that

Actually it's not. Guns are by far the weapon of choice of murderers. Could they use other methods? Maybe, but for the most part they don't. And why don't they? Cause guns are the easiest way to kill people.

The debate is truly centered around Oggy's point of "does gun control work?"

Crazy people get guns and kill regardless of bans. Bans just take guns away from mostly responsible people that aren't fellons.

Farmer1906 wrote:

Crazy people get guns and kill regardless of bans. Bans just take guns away from mostly responsible people that aren't fellons.

statistics show otherwise

of the 60+ mass shootings that have occurred in USA since 1982, over 70% of the murder weapons were obtained legally

its really pretty simple, hunting has declined in america since the late 1960's, the sale of hunting and sporting rifles has declined alone with that.
THe same time, assault weapons became the main sales producer in the gun industry, right around the same time this happens, guess what, the NRA starts equating an assault rifle designed to kill people as a civil liberty. Why? Because its a huge money maker.

They could give a shit about the people killed by the weapons, the NRA has made it very clear it is all about the money, they have tricked fickle norons into believing a gun with 30 bullets in it is something a patriot needs, to "protect himself".

Look up the second amendment, it states all white men who own property have the right to bear arms.
Why?
to "prevent a servile insurrection" = slave uprising.

Birdofthad wrote:

statistics show otherwise

of the 60+ mass shootings that have occurred in USA since 1982, over 70% of the murder weapons were obtained legally

Or maybe there are a whole lot less crazy people than non-crazy people. At least to a murderous state of crazy.

we drug test for jobs and welfare, we do psychological evaluations on military personnel, certain jobs, etc.
Its not crazy to ask that people attempting to buy guns specifically designed for killing people, are questioned and looked into.

Farmer1906 wrote:

captain organic wrote:

Farmer1906 wrote:

cheekynffc wrote:

Farmer1906 wrote:

cheekynffc wrote:

OU wrote:

oggy420 wrote:

im sorry when did we go from discussing smith and wesson to arms race and defense contractors?

All im trying to do is show you how the media is attacking gun owners in an attempt to get everyone on board to demonize the 2nd amendment. CNN has Piers Morgan on 24/7 saying Americans need to be stripped of their gun rights, bloomberg and Cumo are talking about confiscation, that has also been reported in mainstream media, that's the only reason i brought it up so i think it is quite relevant. It shows that just a simple semi-auto rifle ban is not the end game here.

Also, so government agents still get to have whatever weapons they want right? Hmm, yea seems to go along with that whole monopoly on force thing.

Why is it wrong to want to be able to defend yourself and your family?

I don't think confiscation is a realistic option. Sure it might sound good for people firmly against all guns. But that is pretty extreme and IMO has no realistic chance of happening.

My question would be can't you defend your family with a shotgun and a magnum or a .45? Do you really need a semi-auto riffle to make you feel safe? Can't we look at some of those over the top guns? After a certain point isn't it just "look how big my dick is"?

there are probably individuals on this board that do own automatic weapons who will have some idiotic argument to defend it but the reality is that no civilian has any good reason or legitimate need to own weapons like this.

Why does there need to be a reason? Can't it just because they want it and use it for recreation?

no reason i shouldn't be allowed to own a tank and an array of depleted uranium shells by that logic, as long as it's just for fun.

You don't see the difference between a small firearm and a tank. Its ok to use common sense.

And there is a huge difference between a hand gun or hunting rifle and an automatic assault rifle. Cheeky's logic stands. We agree that a line should be drawn somewhere. Question is where? Imo assault rifle is a good place to put that line.

Logic doesn't stand. Auto weapons are relatively easy to get even with a ban. A tank isn't. The hunters and people who own AR for sport aren't the people commuting murder.

i don't know what the american law is on this but in the UK, it is not only legal to own a tank, but they are congestion charge exempt.

you can buy tanks from the army once they've served their time, though tank ammunition is prohibited

Arnold Schwarznegger owns 3 tanks and lets LA kids with good grades come ride them

so in america yes you can own a tank
you can also own fighter jets in america, just not any active fighter jets, how do I know this?
Ross perots fighter jet is sitting at the air museum 6 miles away, he got busted for having a jet that was still being used in the military, so it got seized.

captain organic wrote:

jewzilla wrote:

24 year old piece of shit.

This stuff is terrible for this country.

Poor kids man.

Also gun control is fucking stupid, let's take away the good guys way of protection so the bad guys can hit up the black market and still do what they do.

But do we not need to rethink the ease of acquiring automatic weaponry?

And gun control does not mean taking away guns from the good guys.

NRA supporting mass killings since 1999





5 days later

Birdofthad wrote:

Farmer1906 wrote:

Crazy people get guns and kill regardless of bans. Bans just take guns away from mostly responsible people that aren't fellons.

statistics show otherwise

of the 60+ mass shootings that have occurred in USA since 1982, over 70% of the murder weapons were obtained legally

And if they were banned they'd still get them.

Birdofthad wrote:

its really pretty simple, hunting has declined in america since the late 1960's, the sale of hunting and sporting rifles has declined alone with that.
THe same time, assault weapons became the main sales producer in the gun industry, right around the same time this happens, guess what, the NRA starts equating an assault rifle designed to kill people as a civil liberty. Why? Because its a huge money maker.

They could give a shit about the people killed by the weapons, the NRA has made it very clear it is all about the money, they have tricked fickle norons into believing a gun with 30 bullets in it is something a patriot needs, to "protect himself".

Look up the second amendment, it states all white men who own property have the right to bear arms.
Why?
to "prevent a servile insurrection" = slave uprising.

Umm semi-auto rifles are and have been used for hunting. What about the wild hog problem? Those things can kill people and to take something like that down you need a semi-auto rifle.

and im guessing you never read the 2nd amendment or the constitution because it has nothing to do with slavery. Shit even Ice-T knows why we have a 2nd amendment



it's ok to result to calling gun owners racist when you really have no evidence or data to back up your false claims i guess. Show me examples of gun control working. I've already shown countless examples of it failing. Over and over again. Chicago, DC, Detroit, Britain. These mass shooting are happening in areas that already have strict gun control laws.

and capatain was wondering why i brought up michael moore saying white gun owners are racists. Bird literally just repeated that.

Now apparently “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," means that white people shouldn't own guns, and if you do, you are a racist slave owner

Gun Laws: Before the tragedy in Connecticut, a shooter at an Oregon shopping mall was stopped by an armed citizen with a concealed carry permit who refused to be a victim, preventing another mass tragedy.

In the target-rich environment of the Clackamas Town Center two weeks before Christmas, the shooter managed to kill only two people before killing himself. A far worse tragedy was prevented when he was confronted by a hero named Nick Meli.

As the shooter was having difficulty with his weapon, Meli pulled his and took aim, reluctant to fire lest an innocent bystander be hit. But he didn't have to pull the trigger: The shooter fled when confronted, ending his own life before it could be done for him.

We will never know how many lives were saved by an armed citizen that day.

From Virginia Tech to a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., to a school in Newtown, Conn., such mass shootings are usually in venues declaring themselves gun-free zones.

Other mass shootings — from a high school shooting by in Pearl, Miss., to the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo., which took place before the massacre in Aurora — have been cut short when someone retrieved a gun from a car or elsewhere and confronted the shooter.

John Fund, writing in National Review, notes that the Aurora shooter had a choice of seven movie theaters within a 20-mile drive of his home that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. The Cinemark Theater he chose wasn't the closest, but it was the only one that banned customers from carrying their guns inside, otherwise allowed under Colorado law.

On April 16, 2007, there was no one able to shoot back when Seung-Hui Cho shot 32 people to death on a Virginia Tech campus that, like the theater in Aurora, had declared itself gun-free. The state of Virginia is not a gun-free zone, and crime has dropped where guns are allowed.

Handgun purchases increased 112% between 2006 and 2011, and violent crimes committed by people using handguns fell by 22%. In 2006 there were 23,431 violent crimes in Virginia, and that dropped to 18,196 in 2011. As we and others have said, more guns in the hands of potential victims means less crime.

Had gun-controlled Norway let citizens carry concealed weapons, lone gunman Andres Brevik would not have been able to shoot 68 unarmed people after setting off a car bomb in the heart of Oslo that killed nine others.

President Obama, in the middle of genuinely moving remarks, managed to inject a subliminal need for gun control. We can expect to be lectured about gun rights and gun control by an administration that funneled the same type of weapons used at Sandy Hook to Mexican drug cartels in the Fast and Furious scandal.

Farmer1906 wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

Farmer1906 wrote:

Crazy people get guns and kill regardless of bans. Bans just take guns away from mostly responsible people that aren't fellons.

statistics show otherwise

of the 60+ mass shootings that have occurred in USA since 1982, over 70% of the murder weapons were obtained legally

And if they were banned they'd still get them.

but thats not what you argued at first, first you said they already dont obtain them legally

oggy420 wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

its really pretty simple, hunting has declined in america since the late 1960's, the sale of hunting and sporting rifles has declined alone with that.
THe same time, assault weapons became the main sales producer in the gun industry, right around the same time this happens, guess what, the NRA starts equating an assault rifle designed to kill people as a civil liberty. Why? Because its a huge money maker.

They could give a shit about the people killed by the weapons, the NRA has made it very clear it is all about the money, they have tricked fickle norons into believing a gun with 30 bullets in it is something a patriot needs, to "protect himself".

Look up the second amendment, it states all white men who own property have the right to bear arms.
Why?
to "prevent a servile insurrection" = slave uprising.

Umm semi-auto rifles are and have been used for hunting. What about the wild hog problem? Those things can kill people and to take something like that down you need a semi-auto rifle.

and im guessing you never read the 2nd amendment or the constitution because it has nothing to do with slavery. Shit even Ice-T knows why we have a 2nd amendment



it's ok to result to calling gun owners racist when you really have no evidence or data to back up your false claims i guess. Show me examples of gun control working. I've already shown countless examples of it failing. Over and over again. Chicago, DC, Detroit, Britain. These mass shooting are happening in areas that already have strict gun control laws.

The principal purpose of the 2nd amendment was to preserve the slave system that existed in the late 1700’s. While Professor Lepore (“Battleground America” New Yorker April 23, 2012) gives an excellent summary of the interpretive evolution of the 2nd Amendment, she neglects to speak to its origin. The 2nd Amendment was the price that had to be paid to secure ratification of the Constitution. (See “The Hidden History of the Second Amendment” by Carl T. Bogus.)
The slave states relied on their militias to control their slaves and to suppress rebellion. The militia was required because the slave population in the slave states was such a large proportion of the total population. For example, as per the 1790 census, in Virginia slaves were 39 % of the total population, in South Carolina 43%, in Maryland 32%. (The brutal methods of the state militias, murder, fire, terror were adopted by the Ku Klux Klan.)
Nine states were needed to ratify the constitution drafted in Philadelphia in 1787. At the time of Virginia’s Ratifying Convention (Richmond June 1788), eight states had ratified but of the other five, Virginia was the only realistic hope, for number nine. During the debate in Richmond, Patrick Henry who opposed the Constitution, reminded the delegates that “The militia were the last and best defense against slave insurrection.”
Commitment to including the second amendment in the Bill of Rights removed the threat of Congress using its constitutionally granted power to disarm the state militias. This was the price that had to be paid for Virginia’s ratification.
The horror of slavery was the driving factor for establishing the second amendment. It continues today to extract its grievous toll.


dude it clearly states in the amendment that it is in order to put down a seditious uprising.

Have fun believing Ice T,

The militias of the Second Amendment are meant to protect against federal coercion, popular rebellions, slave revolts, and -- no doubt -- lunatics who try to mass-murder children.

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/13449-the-wait-just-a-goddam-second-amendment

Birdofthad wrote:

Farmer1906 wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

Farmer1906 wrote:

Crazy people get guns and kill regardless of bans. Bans just take guns away from mostly responsible people that aren't fellons.

statistics show otherwise

of the 60+ mass shootings that have occurred in USA since 1982, over 70% of the murder weapons were obtained legally

And if they were banned they'd still get them.

but thats not what you argued at first, first you said they already dont obtain them legally

No I argued if you banned them then you only be taking them away from the more responsible people.

well my bad I once again misinterpreted your point

have you read up on former Supreme Court Justice , who was appointed by Richard Nixon, and was a clear conservative, Warren Burger stated, "the second amendment is the greatest fraud ever imposed on the american people, special interest groups have made it into a money issue. In my opinion the 2nd amendment is clearly about reorganizing state militias, hand guns are not even covered by it in my opinion."

Some have exploited these ancient concerns, blurring sporting guns -- rifles, shotguns and even machine pistols -- with all firearms, including what are now called "Saturday night specials." There is, of course, a great difference between sporting guns and handguns. Some regulation of handguns has long been accepted as imperative; laws relating to "concealed weapons" are common. That we may be "over-regulated" in some areas of life has never held us back from more regulation of automobiles, airplanes, motorboats and "concealed weapons."


have fun arguieng against a conservative supreme court justice

http://www.guncite.com/burger.html

Burger answered that the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat the word 'fraud'—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that "the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all." In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was "to ensure that the 'state armies'—'the militia'—would be maintained for the defense of the state."

oggy420 wrote:

Show me examples of gun control working. I've already shown countless examples of it failing. Over and over again. Chicago, DC, Detroit, Britain. These mass shooting are happening in areas that already have strict gun control laws.

I've shown numerous examples including the nation with the most strict laws having the lowest murder rate. NYC vs large Texas cities works pretty well also.

But there are other factors which must be considered. I agree, but those factors also need to be considered in the Chicago, DC, etc examples.

oggy420 wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

its really pretty simple, hunting has declined in america since the late 1960's, the sale of hunting and sporting rifles has declined alone with that.
THe same time, assault weapons became the main sales producer in the gun industry, right around the same time this happens, guess what, the NRA starts equating an assault rifle designed to kill people as a civil liberty. Why? Because its a huge money maker.

They could give a shit about the people killed by the weapons, the NRA has made it very clear it is all about the money, they have tricked fickle norons into believing a gun with 30 bullets in it is something a patriot needs, to "protect himself".

Look up the second amendment, it states all white men who own property have the right to bear arms.
Why?
to "prevent a servile insurrection" = slave uprising.

Umm semi-auto rifles are and have been used for hunting. What about the wild hog problem? Those things can kill people and to take something like that down you need a semi-auto rifle.

and im guessing you never read the 2nd amendment or the constitution because it has nothing to do with slavery. Shit even Ice-T knows why we have a 2nd amendment



it's ok to result to calling gun owners racist when you really have no evidence or data to back up your false claims i guess. Show me examples of gun control working. I've already shown countless examples of it failing. Over and over again. Chicago, DC, Detroit, Britain. These mass shooting are happening in areas that already have strict gun control laws.

the relatively minute levels of gun crime in countries around the world with stricter gun control laws clearly demonstrate that if you limit access to guns, you limit the ability of people to use them.

of course, it's impossible to eradicate gun crime completely and it would probably be more difficult to put the genie back in the bottle in the US because there are so many guns in circulation. but i don't see how you can deny with a straight face the fact that gun crime rates in the US are so high because it's so easy to get hold of guns.

bottom line is that pro gun people don't give a shit about the second amendment or the rights of their fellow citizens. they get a buzz from owning and handling guns and don't want to give up that buzz. you included.

cheekynffc wrote:

oggy420 wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

its really pretty simple, hunting has declined in america since the late 1960's, the sale of hunting and sporting rifles has declined alone with that.
THe same time, assault weapons became the main sales producer in the gun industry, right around the same time this happens, guess what, the NRA starts equating an assault rifle designed to kill people as a civil liberty. Why? Because its a huge money maker.

They could give a shit about the people killed by the weapons, the NRA has made it very clear it is all about the money, they have tricked fickle norons into believing a gun with 30 bullets in it is something a patriot needs, to "protect himself".

Look up the second amendment, it states all white men who own property have the right to bear arms.
Why?
to "prevent a servile insurrection" = slave uprising.

Umm semi-auto rifles are and have been used for hunting. What about the wild hog problem? Those things can kill people and to take something like that down you need a semi-auto rifle.

and im guessing you never read the 2nd amendment or the constitution because it has nothing to do with slavery. Shit even Ice-T knows why we have a 2nd amendment



it's ok to result to calling gun owners racist when you really have no evidence or data to back up your false claims i guess. Show me examples of gun control working. I've already shown countless examples of it failing. Over and over again. Chicago, DC, Detroit, Britain. These mass shooting are happening in areas that already have strict gun control laws.

the relatively minute levels of gun crime in countries around the world with stricter gun control laws clearly demonstrate that if you limit access to guns, you limit the ability of people to use them.

of course, it's impossible to eradicate gun crime completely and it would probably be more difficult to put the genie back in the bottle in the US because there are so many guns in circulation. but i don't see how you can deny with a straight face the fact that gun crime rates in the US are so high because it's so easy to get hold of guns.

bottom line is that pro gun people don't give a shit about the second amendment or the rights of their fellow citizens. they get a buzz from owning and handling guns and don't want to give up that buzz. you included.

Now I call trolling. You honestly think people own guns feel that way?

Farmer1906 wrote:

cheekynffc wrote:

oggy420 wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

its really pretty simple, hunting has declined in america since the late 1960's, the sale of hunting and sporting rifles has declined alone with that.
THe same time, assault weapons became the main sales producer in the gun industry, right around the same time this happens, guess what, the NRA starts equating an assault rifle designed to kill people as a civil liberty. Why? Because its a huge money maker.

They could give a shit about the people killed by the weapons, the NRA has made it very clear it is all about the money, they have tricked fickle norons into believing a gun with 30 bullets in it is something a patriot needs, to "protect himself".

Look up the second amendment, it states all white men who own property have the right to bear arms.
Why?
to "prevent a servile insurrection" = slave uprising.

Umm semi-auto rifles are and have been used for hunting. What about the wild hog problem? Those things can kill people and to take something like that down you need a semi-auto rifle.

and im guessing you never read the 2nd amendment or the constitution because it has nothing to do with slavery. Shit even Ice-T knows why we have a 2nd amendment



it's ok to result to calling gun owners racist when you really have no evidence or data to back up your false claims i guess. Show me examples of gun control working. I've already shown countless examples of it failing. Over and over again. Chicago, DC, Detroit, Britain. These mass shooting are happening in areas that already have strict gun control laws.

the relatively minute levels of gun crime in countries around the world with stricter gun control laws clearly demonstrate that if you limit access to guns, you limit the ability of people to use them.

of course, it's impossible to eradicate gun crime completely and it would probably be more difficult to put the genie back in the bottle in the US because there are so many guns in circulation. but i don't see how you can deny with a straight face the fact that gun crime rates in the US are so high because it's so easy to get hold of guns.

bottom line is that pro gun people don't give a shit about the second amendment or the rights of their fellow citizens. they get a buzz from owning and handling guns and don't want to give up that buzz. you included.

Now I call trolling. You honestly think people own guns feel that way?

it may be a generalisation that doesn't apply to all gun owners. however, i've no doubt that generalisation will apply to a disturbingly large percentage of gun owners if they were ever honest about their own motives. many gun owners hide behind the second amendment but the reality is they just don't want their own guns taken away.

i do apprieciate tighter gun control in the states would be more difficult than it would be in other countries because of what's gone before and how strongly people feel about it. but the motives of these people are selfish ones, they don't want to retain the right to own these weapons out of concern for the rights of their fellow citizens.

#1 and #2 reason without a doubt and its not even close is protection and hunting. Buzz is maybe in the top ten. I personally don't know anyone that feels that way.

Farmer1906 wrote:

#1 and #2 reason without a doubt and its not even close is protection and hunting. Buzz is maybe in the top ten. I personally don't know anyone that feels that way.

would they admit it if they did feel that way?

i assume there's some degree of paperwork to fill out before you can legally purchase a firearm. does it ask why you want the gun on the form? and if you answered 'for the juice man!' what would be the decision?